Global Warming

[badsede]

OK, what is American Papist's deal with global warming? It seems like he links to every little article out there that is contradictory to or dismissive of claims of the existence of global warming and its consequences or that it is human-caused. This is the kind of thing that really bugs me, when Catholics integrate their political ideologies

Comments

[advoir]

I think there are serious and sincere doubts both about global warming and its causes that don't get publicity because (1) media outlets are rarely/not interested in actual debate, (2) contrary facts and theories get shouted down (like those who question aspects of evolution theory), and partly because (3) questionable theories don't inspire people to vote for socialist policies, crises do.

I'm reading through Michael Crichton's State of Fear, all about the subject, and he cites a plethora of hard data and researchers whose findings directly contradict popular notions about global warming. If it weren't for his exciting fiction, I doubt anyone would've known about them.

[badsede]

There are serious doubts. There is doubt whether the historical data of temps and CO2 show rises in CO2 following or preceding rises in temperature. There are doubts aabout whether this is just one of those macro- temperature trends that a planet is going to go through when you look at time in geological terms. There are legitimate reasons to not be convinced about human-caused global warming, or to not be unreservedly convinced .. I fall into the latter

[advoir]

You covered a lot of things I wanted to write after I had already posted my above comment. I absolutely agree that care of this planet, especially for the Christian, is a moral imperative. (Not to mention all the should-be-obvious practical reasons, some of which you listed.) The dispute over global warming should not be a deciding factor on whether we ought to seriously rethink our behaviour

[badsede]

(1) It was acceptable for the Bush administration to utilize the public's fear of attack against a possible threat, particularly since that fear was not the only reason to deal with it. Likewise, it is acceptable for environmental lobbyists to utilize the public's fear of economic collapse and extinction against a possible threat, particularly since that fear is not the only reason to deal with it.I don't think I agree. On the most basic level, the two are only equivalents if the threat of global warming turns out to be manifestly false .. because quite frankly, the threat that was used to stir up fear in Iraq was manifestly false

[advoir]

Are you saying it was manifestly false that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? My answer to that is: It was manifestly false that he destroyed the the ones the UN counted during prior inspections in any verifiable manner.

Or do you mean it was manifestly false he intended to use weapons of mass destruction against the US? He used them against his neighbours and his own people, so how can the idea of him using them against the US be manifestly false?

Or do you mean it was manifestly false that Hussein funded, planned or otherwise had any thing to do with causing the events on 9-11? Find me a single instance where the Bush administration actually claimed this and I'll concede.

Until then, I maintain the fears are equivalent. Especially since the same people who blame carbon emissions for global warming believe the earth warmed itself out of at least one ice age without our help.

[badsede]

Are you saying it was manifestly false that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? My answer to that is: It was manifestly false that he destroyed the the ones the UN counted during prior inspections in any verifiable manner.

Or do you mean it was manifestly false he intended to use weapons of mass destruction against the US? He used them against his neighbours and his own people, so how can the idea of him using them against the US be manifestly false? He certainly had them, he certainly destroyed some of them. We don't know what happened to the rest. We've scoured the country since and cannot find them. But my point is that all of the evidence that we were offered of his WMDs at the time - aluminum tubes, mobile bio-warfare labs, yellow cake Uranium - turned out to be wrong. The administration did not stick to the rational conclusion of "there before, no proof of destruction" but relied on trumped-up and outright false evidence and conclusions

[advoir]

The administration did not stick to the rational conclusion of "there before, no proof of destruction" but relied on trumped-up and outright false evidence and conclusions.

This argument is too convenient. The UN would not be convinced by its own data to enforce 17 of its own resolutions. They publicly chided the US to come up with something better. That the administration chose to scrape the bottom of the barrel rather than shut up and sit in the back of the class is hardly enough for me to call it conspiracy.

However, I must concede it was nonetheless a blow to their credibility.

The essential fear of global warming is based on the consensus of scientists about scientific inquiry that may not be 100% correct, but is overwhelmingly there.I agree with the first half of your statement. The essential fear is based of the consensus of scientists. What nobody seems to realize any more is that consensus of the intelligentsia is not evidence. So far, the only evidence for GLOBAL warming I have EVER got from science article, news or

[badsede]

The UN would not be convinced by its own data to enforce 17 of its own resolutions.

The UN hardly enforces any of its own resolutions. If it did, the US would be in serious trouble. The US is in violation of several UN resolutions. Israel is in violation of more than Iraq was.

There was more to go on, but the US administration went with scary falsehoods instead of the heinous truths. The US had run out its credibility by that point, and that was the problem .. but this is a conversation we have had before. If the US had had any credibility with the international community at that point, the human rights violations and war crimes of Hussein would have been enough.

Cheney's comments about Iraq being a central front in the war on terror were not inaccurate.But that's not what I'm talking about. He claimed that Iraq was the geographic center of the *9/11* attacks, not just the central front in the war on terror. He outirght said that the 9/11 terrorists were based in Iraq. Bush claimed connections between the organization

[goreism]

I usually don't read Michael Crichton novels, but I made an exception and read State of Fear, aaaand... I thought it was pretty terrible.

F'rinstance, Jennifer brings up urban heat islands at one point, but virtually all analyses correct for this effect today, in addition to using ocean temperature records that are manifestly not subject to this effect. And it goes out of its way to bring up the research by Doran and Priscu, et al. on Antarctic cooling. But this has very little to do with the issue of anthropogenic global warming, as Doran himself points out. I could go on.

I also don't think global warming skeptics are systematically ignored. Indeed, people like Bjørn Lomborg are well-known largely because they've criticized parts of the "global warming orthodoxy." I suspect the reason they're treated as voices in the wilderness is, well, because they are, and that most scientists in the relevant disciplines (including geology, pace yechezkiel!) don't think they're right

[yechezkiel]

Most people think we are in a warming trend. This is pretty evident, even with the slight cooling of the 1990s. Whether or not this is a long-term trend is of serious contention, but I think that's partly because of the essential conservatism (not in the political, but in the epistemological sense) of scientists who deal with large amounts of historical data.

I've never ruled out anthropogenic warming, but I do find it improbable (in a literal sense). There is little-to-no silencing in the scientific community of "skeptics", the silence occurs primarily in media outlets traditionally seen as "serious" (i.e., Fox News and Rush Limbaugh don't count).

[goreism]

There is little-to-no silencing in the scientific community of "skeptics", the silence occurs primarily in media outlets traditionally seen as "serious" (i.e., Fox News and Rush Limbaugh don't count).

Really? As an unscientific test, I googled a few major media outlets for Lomborg's name. (I pick him because his fame-or notoriety-stems almost exclusively from his views on climate change.) Turns out he's penned signed editorials in the Economist, as well as the New York Times and the Washington Post. All of those outlets have written several articles on him and his books. The New York Review of Books has done, well, a review of his latest. I'm having trouble of thinking of any publications that are more "serious" or "liberal establishment" than those (the Atlantic Monthly, maybe?); maybe you can come up with a few?

I suspect that "[t]he whole 'scientific agreement' jive that is rammed in heads by media all day long" is mostly due to the fact that virtually all the scientific organizations have released policy statements supporting

[yechezkiel]

There are articles on it, but the casual mentions are very telling. The tenor is monolithic.

*shrug*

[advoir]

but virtually all analyses correct for this effect today,

You must have missed the part about the controversy over whether the corrections are valid or accurate.

But this has very little to do with the issue of anthropogenic global warming,

Likewise in the book, which cites the findings as evidence that the Antarctic continent is not melting away, which is a commonly repeated misconception.

I also don't think global warming skeptics are systematically ignored.

I wouldn't think it some Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. ;)

most scientists in the relevant disciplines [...] don't think they're right

This may be unorthodox, but consensus is not actually evidence. Scientists have agreed on all kinds of malarkey throughout history.

I'm nowhere near being a socialist, but Environmentalism doesn't cause socialism. But leftists want government to get in the habit of adopting leftist policies. Same for socialists, which want more extreme leftist policies. Such policies bode well for environmentalists because they would force changes the